Vancouver Metro Region Votes NO.

VICTORIA ai??i?? The voting results for the 2015 Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite were submitted today to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

According to section 282(1) of the Election Act, the purpose of a plebiscite is to determine the opinion of voters on a matter of public concern. Of the 759,696 ballots considered, the majority of validly cast votes were opposed to the question on the ballot.

The plebiscite question was:Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayorsai??i?? Council transportation and transit plan?

Beginning March 16, 2015, Elections BC mailed a 2015 Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite voting package to each registered voter in Metro Vancouver. As of the May 15, 2015 deadline to register to vote and ask for a voting package, there were 1,562,386 registered voters in Metro Vancouver. A total of 798,262 ballot packages were returned, representing 51.09% of the total registered voters. 38,393 ballot packages were not considered as they did not meet the requirements of the plebiscite Regulation.

Registered voters in Metro Vancouver midnight, Friday, May 15, 2015

1,562,386

Total number of ballot packages returned

798,262

Percentage of ballot packages returned

51.09%

Total number of ballot packages not considered

38,393

Total number of ballot packages considered (registered voters who voted)

759,869*

Percentage of registered voters who voted

48.64%

*759,869 ballot packages were considered. 173 ballot packages contained certification envelopes with either two or more ballots, or no ballot. In accordance with the Regulation, these envelopes were resealed and set aside.

The Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2015 Metro Vancouver Transportation and Transit Plebiscite ai??i?? March 16-July 2, 2015 is expected to be published in September 2015 and will describe the activities Elections BC undertook to administer the plebiscite, voting results by municipality and a statement of Elections BCai??i??s expenses.

Comments

Thank you Jordan Bateman for being the voice of reason, and by coincidence for a great birthday present, today. Without you TransLink might have pulled off the heist of the century. Thanks, also, to everyone else who voted “No” to more fraud and corruption by TransLink.

With absolutely no reservations, none, I voted no to the sales tax for TransLink. It took a great deal of resolve to refrain from stapling a piece of toilet paper to the ballot with “you know what you can do with this” written on it, to avoid spoiling it.

The people have spoken – and they don’t trust TransLink with more of their hard-earned money.

Who can blame them? The No TransLink Tax campaign, led by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, highlighted more than 80 specific examples of TransLink waste and mismanagement, and made a strong case for major change at TransLink. More than that, many referendum voters have had several bad experiences with the system. TransLink itself canned its CEO, effectively admitting their organization was not well run.

Now is the time to change all that, and rebuild the taxpayers’ confidence in their transportation authority.

TransLink should start with a core review, drilling down into program spending with the intention to cut anything that doesn’t move a single person a single inch. No more poodles on poles, no more $40,000 TVs, no more leasing empty buildings, no more TransLink vanity projects. The core review would go deeper than any audit, recommending cheaper ways to deliver necessary service.

This push for efficiency isn’t about cutting money from the transportations system; it’s about reinvesting it in things that actually matter to riders and taxpayers and restoring confidence in TransLink. Saving money should be a bridge to better service.

The review should include a move to cut the six boards of directors to one, and collapse all the various subcompanies. TransLink doesn’t need multiple human resources, communications, administration or purchasing departments.

The transit police force, which ran $2.2 million over budget last year, should be scrapped. Response times and public safety wouldn’t suffer if local police took over the big files, while cheaper transit security officers handled fare issues on the system.

The mayors should be sent to prioritize their spending plan, with fresh estimates, not the four-year-old ones claimed by TransLink during the campaign. Mayors Linda Hepner and Gregor Robertson, so desirous of big projects, should find savings at both TransLink and in their own city halls to help fund the regional share, or find ways to ensure existing taxpayers aren’t on the hook for growth.

TransLink projects like the Pattullo Bridge refurbishment should be independently reviewed by the Ministry of Transportation or another peer agency to ensure they are being done in a safe, cost-effective manner.

Legislative changes are needed as well. The BC government should make it clear that the transportation minister has the authority to fire the TransLink board of directors. Either the provincial Auditor General or Auditor General for Local Government should be given regular access to TransLink’s books.

The transportation minister can no longer be an idle spectator. The hiring of the next TransLink CEO – which should come at a far cheaper price and with a fixed-term contract – is too vital a decision for the minister to miss. Further, the minister should give the TransLink board an annual mandate letter, with clear, specific goals.

One more thing. Politicians of all stripes, at all levels, should also hear the clear concern of taxpayers in this region. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet, and the ever-growing tax burden is not helping. Don’t come back to taxpayers for more cash – find the savings within the billions we already send you. The No TransLink Tax campaign has already done the work for you on a plan B: Earmark just 0.5 per cent of your nearly 5 per cent annual revenue growth and you could fund your entire wish list.

Hundreds of thousands of Lower Mainlanders voted for change in the referendum. A huge swath of the public has lost confidence in TransLink: It’s a message the premier, minister, mayors, TransLink brass, and the rest of the YES side, can no longer ignore.

Call up all your MPP’s, oh sorry, you call them MLA’s out there. Anyway, call them up and start some serious lobbying/talking and chest thumping for your Tram Train now! You have 3-6 weeks to get the attention and possible love for a cheaper rapid transit option after that you it will take 5 years before anything happens. The current crop of transit groups have just had all their dreams sucked out of them, so go and show them a alternative.

Zwei replies: Our MLA’s just do not want to know. They are gung-ho for a Broadway subway because (as I heard an NDP MLA say on the radio) subways are a good because they have proven to reduce congestion and pollution.” Is seems SNC play both ends of the political spectrum.

The health care scandal has greatly overshadowed the TransLink fiasco and with Allen’s idiocy on the radio on Friday, i would think most MLA’s will not touch transit with a 10 foot pole.

“Haider argues that Toronto’s Sheppard subway line is an example of how politics can play too large a role in how we design and ultimately build transit projects. Completed in 2002 after years of delays and cost overruns, the 5.5 km stretch of track was largely championed by a small coalition of politicians hoping to curry favour from voters in an area that was, at the time, a relatively sparsely populated patch of suburbia.

Density has increased around the line since its unveiling, but ridership has not lived up to projections. Two of the city’s major streetcar routes — the King and Spadina — have higher daily ridership but cost far less to operate.

It’s a cautionary tale of what happens when politics trumps effective planning, Haider says, adding that “there are examples of these kinds of mistakes all across the country.” [Evergreen Line, Cambie Street subway, Expo Line and Millennium Line in Vancouver, for example].

To sum it up: go with trams; be smart, cut costs, subways and s-trains cost too much and don’t attract drivers who prefer point to point transport. Subways and s-trains fleece taxpayers paying for the concrete to make the crooks selling the concrete rich.